19 replies to this topic

[pathere]

I've just received a new receiver called a solo pro v3 aka Herobox I have an Openpli image for it from their support site but there are no instructions on how to flash the box.  The software goes in via a memory stick but I need to get the directory names and structure right and so far all the guesses have not worked.

Anyone know the recipe as although the firmware it comes with is OK, its not what I am familiar with and like.

[hemertje]

there is NO OpenPLi image for the "solo pro v3 aka Herobox" !

 

see our startpage

[pathere]

As Galileo said "and yet it moves" or in this case the image does not flash because its not in the right place on the memory stick

and there are no clues.

[Erik Slagter]

Apparently.

 

And where do you think you should ask for support?

[pathere]

I'm sorry I thought this was a support forum for openpli - which is the system I prefer - and that the word OPEN meant that.

 

Anyway the answer is to copy the files onto the memory stick 'as is' and power the box on with the front panel button held down and flashes

 

Now I know and hopefully someone with the same problem will read this post and get the help they needed.

 

Which is what I think support forums are good for

 

Thank you for your time.

[WanWizard]

But you were already told that there is no OpenPLi image for that box. We only provide support for images we build ourselfs.

[pathere]

Well there certainly is an image and it works, hence the Galileo quote but apologise for my heresy in asking a simple question with an easy answer.

Maybe you should create an 'official' image for the box as its very nice

[Erik Slagter]

Ask the manufacturer...

 

But anyway this sounds like a clone, so it won't get support anyway.

Edited by Erik Slagter, 15 April 2016 - 17:33.

[pathere]

Ask the manufacturer...

 

But anyway this sounds like a clone, so it won't get support anyway.

I thought the project was "a community project focused on developing software for open source

linux dvb receivers using the linux operating system." rather than just particular manufacturers

 

I like the idea of open source as (at work) it allows me to customise the system and eliminate  bugs easily.

Of course there is a steep learning curve on any existing complex software package.
 

I've also released some freeware which solved problems for me and would be useful to others. 

 

Having started creating software in 1967 its not something new.

Are clones automatically 'bad' ?  Are you using an original IBM PC/AT ... probably not, neither am I although

I do own one.

 

have a nice day.

Edited by pathere, 17 April 2016 - 13:59.

[Erik Slagter]

You are completely free to build a version of OpenPLi for your receiver. Just don't expect us to support it.

[Rob van der Does]

Are clones automatically 'bad'?

Yes.

[WanWizard]

The problem with most clones is inferieur hardware (components).

 

The IBM AT analogy is not correct, there is a difference with "another box that is compatible" (which applies to the PC world too) and "it is a direct copy of another box" which is meant by the term clone.

[Rob van der Does]

The problem with most clones is inferieur hardware (components).
 
The IBM AT analogy is not correct, there is a difference with "another box that is compatible" (which applies to the PC world too) and "it is a direct copy of another box" which is meant by the term clone.

And that 'direct copy' even uses the original manufacturers drivers (and more). So not sure how anybody could not see that as 'bad'.

[malakudi]

Actually, back in the days of IBM PC, it was not so clear that the Compaq compatible was not a "clone". The IBM PC BIOS was intellectual property of IBM and Compaq had to build a reverse-engineered version of the BIOS using a "clean room" design. Thank God there was no DMCA back then, because we might never had IBM PC compatibles!

On the other hand, clone STBs use the closed source binary drivers of the original STB, thus violating their intellectual property. And OpenPLi cannot support STBs that violate the intellectual property of other manufacturers.

[goldeneye]

Back in the days, PC design was copied in license. Same applied for the BIOS chips used. All manufacturers paid a license fee to IBM so they could use their code and their initial hardware design.. Were they 'clones'? Technically speaking yes, but under license.. Clone STB's manufacturers typically do NOT (want) to pay anything for a license. They just want to lift on other firms successes... That's the difference. Furthermore these manufacturers do not use the same high quality components but aim to build at the lowest cost price using inferior parts.. And this is considered 'bad' as the user thinks he/she bought the real thing...

[pathere]

The problem with most clones is inferieur hardware (components).

 

So the story goes, and yet most companies making satellite receivers contract out the actual manufacture to ... China.

 

I actually got banned on another forum for asking how to unbrick another clone with a bad bootloader and was lectured about how

clones are badly made, by people who probably can't solder and haven't got a well equipped workshop;  I've been building radios since I

was 13 and have spent a lifetime repairing electronic equipment, so know badly made stuff when I see it and can measure it.

 

But if mention of clones is verboten it would be good to state that on the website. Otherwise one might assume that open

source software does not really care what it runs on. For the record the box does run the latest version OK.

[WanWizard]

There is no direct relation between quality, components used, and place of manufacture.

 

The definition of a clone is that it is a copy, made as cheap as possible, with as single goal to maximize the profit in the shortest possible time by "stealing" a reputable company's brand and intellectual property. This is by far not limited to STB's, the same is true for shampoo, perfume, t-shirts and shoes, you name it.

 

It has no relation to the entire PC situation, none of the "IBM compatibles" were clones in this context, they were reverse engineered and designed to be compatible. Or not, as there were subtle differences between for example the 8086 and the NEC V20, or the early IBM and Phoenix BIOS'ses.

 

The reason we don't want to have anything to do with these are not only related to the infringement of brand and copyright, but also because in the past we have spend so much time chasing ghosts, bugs that turned out to be caused by the combination of inferior hardware and stolen software that wasn't designed for it, nor tested on it, and not something in the image.

 

And as to your last remark: may I ask you to read the forum rules, which you should have done before you posted here? It has a seperate section dedicated to "clones".

[pathere]

Well that is one definition of a clone, Dolly the Sheep would think otherwise, and most STB's I've seen have been well made.

The worst one was an original Canal+ receiver which needed resoldering its bits.

 

I can't find the forum rules, so perhaps a link would help as the search facility says No results found for 'forum rules'.

Its some time since I joined and mainly read things rather than ask questions or argue.

 

As to PC's we again disagree, as there were many clones of the original IBM designs, IBM chose to allow a lot of its

IP to become an open standard.  It is no longer in the PC business.  Perhaps the only really genuine PC was

made by Epson who made everything from many of the chips, to the floppy and hard drives and the BIOS. Their technical

manuals explain computer design better than anything else.  They also no longer make PC's

 

I won't ask any further questions about openpli on my new box but it works fine.

[WanWizard]

There is also no relation between quality and brand. I personally would not classify "Canal +" as an A-brand when it comes to receivers.

 

There is a link to the rules at the top of every forum (for example: http://forums.openpl...nduser-support/) so you can't miss it.

[bonjon]

merci pour ce poste